I was not making a point that that homosexuality should be accepted because it is natural, I was refuting your point that "Homosexuality is unnatural, hence we should not allow it". The same thing that you have now said to me applies to yourself. Heterosexuality is also natural, must we not accept it either? No.
Humans are not hermaphrodites, a person is either male or female. The vast majority of people are solely attracted to the opposite sex and it is only through sex between two members of the opposite sex that life can be created.
Homosexuality is a deviation from the norm. It is a behaviour, I don't see why you cannot accept this.
Well that sentence contradicts that whole paragraph.
No it doesn't...
While this article hypothesises the purpose behind the behaviour (we are not addressing this, we are talking about facts here), it does NOT destroy the fact that animal homosexual behaviour is present in nature.
No, it dispells the theory that simply because a simlar (however subetly different) behaviour is observed in animals and humans that it is right or should be accepted as normal.
Humans ARE animals, only that we are more complex and we can communicate more effectively. Once again, BOTH homosexuality and heterosexuality occur in nature.
You cannot say that either one is "bad", unless if a WHOLE species is homosexual lol.
Unless a species is hemaphrodidic (in which case individuals can't be said to pertain to a single gender anyway) homosexual relationships individuals are unable to create life, ergo a whole species cannot be homosexual.
You cannot compare homosexuality to heterosexuality in that regard. A species of homosexuals cannot exist. Biologically (morals aside) it is totally unsustainable.
Yes. So heterosexuality should not be tolerated? The irony in your saying is that you say that "heterosexuality is natural and homosexuality is not that's why homosexuality should not be tolerated" then you say that "we should not act natural aka like animals, instead act "civilised" ".
As I just stated, you can't compare homosexuality to heterosexuality in humans. Hetersexual reproduction is biologically required for our species to survive.
Homosexuality serves no purpose in humans. In animals it has been suggested that individuals engage in homosexual sex as displays of dominance (which has no relevance to human social interaction) and as a means of attracting partners of the opposite sex with to reproduce. Yes, some species do engage in homosexual sex, but it is as a means to an end, to reproduce themselves. (Strictly speaking, animals which engage in homosexual acts would be closer to the human equivilant of bisexual, since an exclusive preference to individuals of the same gender hasn't been yet observed in nature).
This is not the case with humans, where homosexual relationships are based solely on the lust and pleasure demands of those involved. Now you can say well theres nothing wrong with that, I would beg to differ, but to an extent I agree, just because they are based solely on the selfish pursuit of pleasure doesn't mean that they should be banned or w/e. But what it does mean is that they are inherinetly not equal to the union between a man and women, which exists (both biologically and religiously speaking) for more than simply a source of pleasure.
Not to say that all heterosexual relationships are shining life of moral and sexual morality. But they at least are capable of being so, while homosexual relationships are doomed to failure right from the start, simply on the basis of what they are.
They do not have the right to "marry".
Yes they do, marriage means a union between a man and a women. Anyone can marry. Homosexuals don't want to marry, they want the definition of marriage to be changed solely to be includive of their own lifestyle choices.
This debate is about why a previously unacceptable behaviour should now be tolerated and legislated for. Simply saying, "because they want it" or "because I think its fair" are not convincing arguements.
Also, we are discussing WHY should or should not they have the right, not the fact that they do or don't.
Homosexuals can life in lifelong relationships, their relationships are recognised by the government. They already have what they are asking for.
It is discrimination. The rights that they deserve are not special - all heterosexual (non-incestual, adult etc) couples have this right already. By allowing them to share this right, we are only accepting them as they are. By NOT allocating these rights to them, you are basically alienating them.
Calling an apple and apple and an orange on orange is not descrimination. Likewise treating heterosexual unions as what they are and homsoexual unions as something different is not descrimination.
They are alienating themselves (through their actions, not their desires), I can't believe you don't see that.
Deviation from the norm is fine in many cases, but its stupid to dress it up and pretend it isn't just that. I'm fine with people living the way they want and with who they want, but lets not kid ourselves here and believe in a whole bunch on politically correct liberal BS.
All people deserve the same rights. But not all behaviours are equal, and those which are not should not be treated as such. It is that simple.
Well this can change, can't it? Definitions do not necessarily stay still, as with the English language in general.
Change should only occur if it is for the better. Abandoning morality for the sake of being able to do whatever it is we want, is not for the good of anyone, including homosexuals.
If they are infertile, they will not be able to create life, much like homosexuals.
They engage in sexual acts which otherwise would be capable of procuring life. They may be biologically unable to do so, but this is not their fault, they are doing everything right.
Homosexuals on the other hand do not. They choose to have sex in ways which will never be able to create life.
But of course it may possible that homosexuals can actually create life through the help of science.
CGS�:�Are male eggs and female sperm on the horizon?
Article made me sick
Look, whether you can bring yourself to accept it or not, humans reproduce through one man having sex with one women, resulting in fertilisation, development of an embryo and several months later, birth.
I don't care what Dr. Frankenstein does in his laboratory, that is the way humans naturally bring new life into this world. If you don't want to partake in that process that fine, but don't expect, let alone demand that you should be able to create life.
Its the equivilant of me saying "look, I really want to swim but I don't want to get wet". The answer is not to develop some substance which resembles water and allows me to swim "dry" but either to harden the fuck up and get wet or not bother. The choice is mine, if I truly wanted what I said, getting wet is a comparitively insignificant sacrifice.
OFC gays don't see it this way, its their right to have children isn't it? even though they choose to engage in sexual behaviours which prevent them from doing so.
(That said I'm not supporting the notion of gays having straight sex simply to have a child and then raising it with homosexual parents. A child deserves their mother and father, though gay adoption etc is a different debate).
Children are not accessory items. Human life is sacred and important, and should be treated as such by everyone, regardless of religion.
If a couple wants a child, concieve or GTFO.
Can't that be said for infertile couples? Why would they choose to have sex if they knew that they won't be able to produce offspring?
Its still different, because said couple is engaging in acts which can produce life, its just in their case, they individually are unable for w/e reason to do so.
They have good intentions, but are unable to succeed through no fault or misdeed of their own.
For your information, I am straight, but I still support gay marriage. It does not satisfy any said "personal desires" of mine.
I assumed as much, which was why I just referred to "x" behaviour, which could refer to just about anything, even something seemingly unimportant like the colour clothes you wear etc.
I simply see that they should have the same rights as anyone else. It makes sense.
Yes I agree all people are equal, but not all behaviours are.
A person is so much more than who they sleep with. People who have sex with those of the same gender obviously deserve rights, but the privelges associated with marriage, a union between a man and women, should not be bestowed upon unions which are not equal to it and as such not worthy of them.
How would you feel if you were the only straight person in a non-straight society which rejects straight people? (I am assuming you are straight)
Yes I'm straight but, once again, this is a flawed question, because for a human society to survive, it has to be prodominantly heteroseuxal.
A better hypothetical would be if I were gay, in which case, I'd still try to the best of my ability to adhere to the scriptures that I follow, in my case those of the Bible. I would accept that I am a no greater or worse sinner than anybody else, but that doesn't excuse some behaviours as being simply unacceptable.
